Jan. 12
07:22 am JST

Yes. S.Korea is shifting the blame.

Why is Moon quiet when Korean citizens are suing his government?

Give them their share of the 800 millions and all will be well.

We are yet to hear his speech about a Korean group of 1,103 former forced laborers and their families said it had filed a lawsuit demanding the South Korean government provide 100 million won ($88,500) to each of them in compensation because it had received funds from Japan.

Jan. 12
07:36 am JST

Jan. 12
08:22 am JST

This is just a typical blame for political propaganda by the Abe administration.

*The court also declared that the state cannot liquidate an individual’s claim rights without the individual’s consent; it can only abandon diplomatic protection rights. The Japanese government has also recognized that the claims agreement does not address the issue of compensation based on the illegal nature of colonial rule but merely provides for the abandonment of diplomatic protection rights between the states.*

Jan. 12
09:08 am JST

Japan believes that all such claims were settled in a 1965 treaty that normalized relations, Suga said on Friday, and that Seoul has now broken that treaty.

Setting aside the history of this issue, there is an interesting point that really hasn't been addressed.

Theoretically, an independent judiciary can actually make a ruling that contravenes a treaty that its nation has with another nation. It should not happen, as the judicial branch should take into account international treaty obligations when making a ruling, but it can very much happen.

So, in this case, if the Korean court has made a ruling that violates the terms of the 1965 Agreement, then the Japanese government would make claim to the Korean government to compensate, etc.

The idea that the Korean government's hands are tied just because an independent court made a ruling is absolutely ludicrous.

Jan. 12
09:41 am JST

Even the former Japanese government official in charge of this matter acknowledged the individual claim rights.

At a session of the House of Councillors’ Budget Committee on August 27, 1991, Director General Yanai Shunji of MOFA’s Treaties Bureau addressed the issue of the abandonment of individual claim rights under the claim settlement agreement, stating, “This is a mutual abandonment of the diplomatic protection rights possessed by Japan and the Republic of Korea as states. So it does not cause the liquidation of the claim rights of individuals with respect to domestic law. It means that the governments of the two countries cannot raise these matters with respect to each other by exercising their diplomatic protection rights.

Jan. 12
10:37 am JST

Jan. 12
10:45 am JST

The good old Japanese game of blaming the victim. Remember who forced the Koreans to be slave laborers. Japan. This case is about unpaid wages. Pure and simple.

A reminder. South Korea is no longer the poverty stricken dictatorship it was 1965. It is major industrial power and a democracy. Try intimidating South Korea, Japan, and South Korea will fight back. And win.

Jan. 12
11:12 am JST

Even the former Japanese government official in charge of this matter acknowledged the individual claim rights.

Yes, individuals have right to claim, so Korean individuals should claim to their own government as they sued in 2018.

Korean government is responsible for compensating their own people and so Japan is.

Before 1965, more than 3000 Japanese fishermen were attacked and captured by Koreans and some died . But JAPAN PAID compensation to victims because of agreement in 1965.

=============================

1965

The reparations agreement signed along with the 1965 treaty clearly states that the issues of asset ownership and the right to seek compensation were resolved "completely and finally" with Japan offering economic assistance to South Korea.

2005

the administration of former President Roh Moo-hyun concluded in 2005 that compensation for forced laborers was included as "settlement money" in the 300 million dollars Tokyo paid to Seoul based on the reparations agreement. The South Korean government has compensated those workers.

Korean group of 1,103 former forced laborers and their families said it had filed a lawsuit demanding the South Korean government provide 100 million won ($88,500) to each of them in compensation because it had received funds from Japan.

Jan. 12
11:26 am JST

Theoretically, an independent judiciary can actually make a ruling that contravenes a treaty that its nation has with another nation. It should not happen, as the judicial branch should take into account international treaty obligations when making a ruling, but it can very much happen.

The treaty as a whole, Yes, interpreting the content to make a ruling No.

Basically the supreme court can come out with a ruling if the treaty reflects and abide the constitution. If not the court can order the government to renegotiate terms with the other party based on the rulings but since international treaties are not based on any given domestic laws, the supreme court has no jurisdiction in interpreting specific content within the given treaty like what the SK supreme court had done.

Like I had posted numerous times ROK Supreme Court had over stepped their authority in interpreting the content.

As for ;

individual claim rights under the claim settlement agreement, stating, “This is a mutual abandonment of the diplomatic protection rights possessed by Japan and the Republic of Korea as states. So it does not cause the liquidation of the claim rights of individuals with respect to domestic law. It means that the governments of the two countries cannot raise these matters with respect to each other by exercising their diplomatic protection rights.

Yes the individual claims are mutual abandonment of diplomatic protection rights by both parties but it does not mean liquidation of the claims of individuals with respect of domestic laws but if either party had violated the treaty then those diplomatic protection rights are automatically reactivated.

Although the supreme court is completely separated from the government, the treaty is tied between two nations and not by any ruling administrations meaning any rulings by the court that violates the terms within the treaty is a violation by the nation itself.

Jan. 12
12:04 pm JST

The reparations agreement signed along with the 1965 treaty clearly states that the issues of asset ownership and the right to seek compensation were resolved "completely and finally" with Japan offering economic assistance to South Korea.

The real story. The 1965 treaty was foisted upon Japan and South Korea for the sake of military unity. This was rammed through the Diet by the LDP. In South Korea it was accept by the Park dictatorship without the will of the people. There were violent demonstrations against this so-called treaty both in South Korea and Japan. If ever there was a treaty that should be violated this is it. But the present issue has nothing to do with the treaty. It is a civil suit.

Jan. 12
12:18 pm JST

About Roh. In a visit to Japan he said he would not demand any new apologies from Japan in the hope of bettering relations with that country. His good intentions were betrayed by Japan. This is from Wikipedia; pardon the length:

During the visit, Roh proclaimed he would not seek any more apologies from Japan over its colonial occupation, in the hope of maintaining a friendly relationship between the two countries. Although Roh's proclamation was made in good faith, some expressed concern that Japan may have interpreted this as the termination of its responsibility for the colonial past, and use it as an excuse to deny any claims for compensation that may arise in the future.

Despite Roh's hope, relations with Japan deteriorated henceforth, in several areas of conflict such as compensation issues for comfort women, denial of the colonial past in Japanese history textbooks, and disputes over the Liancourt Rocks. Another sensitive issue, former Prime Minister of JapanJunichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to Yasukuni Shrine were harshly criticized in South Korea, and Roh declared no further meetings with Koizumi would take place unless he stopped visiting the shrine.

According to Rep. Chung Mong-joon, former leader of the ruling Saenuri Party, "The Roh Moo-hyun administration proposed that the U.S. define Japan as a hypothetical enemy," at the Korea-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting in Seoul in October 2005. "President Roh proposed it because the general public had bad feelings against Japan and Korea had a territorial dispute over the Dokdo islets with Japan, Washington was very embarrassed since it had hoped Korea and Japan would go hand-in-hand as free and democratic countries. A hypothetical enemy in English implies a main enemy."

In short it was open season on Japan again. This, however, is a side note and have nothing to do with this civil suit, except, possibly, incidentally.

Jan. 12
12:40 pm JST

The real story. The 1965 treaty was foisted upon Japan and South Korea for the sake of military unity. This was rammed through the Diet by the LDP. In South Korea it was accept by the Park dictatorship without the will of the people. There were violent demonstrations against this so-called treaty both in South Korea and Japan. If ever there was a treaty that should be violated this is it.

All following administrations of ROK INCLUDING ones that were properly elected by the people had acknowledged the validity and accepted itm so what is your point?

Like I have been posting the Supreme Court does not have authority over a treaty bound by two nations since it has nothing to do with domestic law including the constitution, they can only rule if the treaty as a whole is constitutionally acceptable or not and can not step into details within the content of the treaty.

Boy, I guess a nation that does not understand the difference between international treaty and domestic law and who obtains jurisdiction over what, has difficulty in understanding what the rest of the world is telling them.

Jan. 12
12:42 pm JST

KabukiloverToday 10:45 am JST

A reminder. South Korea is no longer the poverty stricken dictatorship it was 1965. It is major industrial power and a democracy. Try intimidating South Korea, Japan, and South Korea will fight back. And win.

And who helped SK get there? Mitsubishi Motors helped Hyundai get into auto production. Kawasaki Heavy Industries helped them get into shipbuilding. There are some in Japan who feel South Koreans are an ungrateful lot and it's no wonder. A Major industrial power? Japan was a founding member of the G6 back in 1975. Do you see South Korea anywhere on this list? Do you realize that South Korea is not even on the 2017 G20 list?

As far as "intimidating" anyone, looks to me like South Korea is the one doing all the intimidating. Raising a claim, negotiating an agreement, getting Japan to pay....then like clockwork reneging on the agreement to go back to square one. No one would deal with an individual who did this, and South Korea is asking to be treated the same sway by the international community. Small people have big egos, and the same applies to countries.

Jan. 12
12:50 pm JST

gogogo: "Does Korea ever honor signed agreements?"

In South Korea the courts -- not the government -- sided with former victims (people some hear basically call aggressors and Japan the victim). Now, if you want to talk about not Following an agreement, the Japanese company agreed to go to court and lost, and now does not want to obey the rules.

Jan. 12
04:31 pm JST

@Chip Star

Well, after various apologies have been made; different funds set up to support the remaining victims and then abruptly dissolved; and continuingly asking for even more sincere apologies. I think anyone would believe the south koreans are ungrateful and dishonorable.

Jan. 12
05:05 pm JST

@Triring

Although the supreme court is completely separated from the government, the treaty is tied between two nations and not by any ruling administrations meaning any rulings by the court that violates the terms within the treaty is a violation by the nation itself.

No international treaty can take away any individual's rights to property and claim, and no international treaty can declare anything on the individual' rights. If you believe any international treaty can be interpreted as you believe, simply it is wrong and you are ignorant on the law. Please study again what a Japanese legal expert explains on this matter (I assume he is not pro- or anti-Korea. Just neutral and objective).

Jan. 12
05:21 pm JST

Again?

You really haven't a clue the difference between domestic law and international treaties do you?

BASED ON treaties between two nations in which A is required to relinquish something to B, the ruling administration of A declares law to seize that something as government property of A then hands possession to B.

Seizure of individual rights and/or property can be seized by law so there is no conflict by law.

That is how things works in other nations that abide international laws and treaties.

Jan. 12
05:49 pm JST

@Triring

I assume you can read and understand the following sentence:

The Hiroshima High Court also judged that the plaintiffs had the right to claim damages for their employer’s failure to take proper safety measures, and it recognized their right to claim unpaid wages (though it ruled the statute of limitations to have expired).

Jan. 12
06:08 pm JST

I assume you can read and understand the following sentence:

The Hiroshima High Court also judged that the plaintiffs had the right to claim damages for their employer’s failure to take proper safety measures, and it recognized their right to claim unpaid wages (though it ruled the statute of limitations to have expired).

Jan. 12
06:15 pm JST

@Triring

The major difference between the Japanese and the Korean courts is whether the wartime forced labor was illegal or not. In Japanese courts, it was judged as legal, but in Korean courts, it was judged as illegal. If you live, work and earn money in S. Korea, you should abide by the Korean domestic law and accept any verdict of the Korean Supreme court. If you can not, just leave.

The issue is whether the wartime forced labor was illegal or not; on this point the legal judgments of the two sides differ. The Hiroshima High Court, which handled the appeal on this case in Japan, judged that the forced labor itself could not be considered illegal but that the employer violated its duty to provide for the safety of employees after the dropping of the atomic bomb.

Jan. 12
06:20 pm JST

Yes, damn the South Koreans for not being grateful to the country that raped and pillaged them for over 30 years and continues to deny it did so. Damn them all to hell!

Yes, damn the South Koreans for flattering the country that raped and pillaged them for over 1000 years and continues to call them “Brother we're One culture”. Damn them all to hell!

Yes, damn the South Koreans for neither being sorry nor paying a penny to the country that she raped and pillaged and slaughtered. What the heck kind of business South Koreans had with the country in the first place to send the troops to bring atrocities in ? Damn them all to hell!

Jan. 12
06:32 pm JST

I really do not understand what that case have to do with international treaties. The court only ruled on domestic law not having to do with any international treaties.

Yes. You are right. The S. Korean court's verdict is applied within S. Korea, not in Japan or other countries.

On Wednesday, the Daegu District Court’s branch office in the southeastern city of Pohang said it issued the seizure order for some Korean assets of the Japanese company in early January after lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a request to do so.

The Japanese company holds 2.34 million shares, or around $9.7 million, in a joint venture in Pohang with South Korean steelmaker POSCO.

Jan. 12
06:34 pm JST

@SJ

Sorry Sorry Sorry for intervening you guys,

No international treaty can take away any individual's rights to property and claim, and no international treaty can declare anything on the individual' rights. If you believe any international treaty can be interpreted as you believe, simply it is wrong and you are ignorant on the law. Please study again what a Japanese legal expert explains on this matter (I assume he is not pro- or anti-Korea. Just neutral and objective).

So, Japanese victims of Atomic Bombs, or Tokyo air raid, can claim compensation to US? Now?

What about Vietnamese? How about Africans? All those Asians? I appreciate if you could show how those should be solved?

6
(
+6
/
-0
)

Moderator

Jan. 12
06:49 pm JST

Jan. 12
06:49 pm JST

@SJ

What I think Triring is trying to explain, in short, is that once Int’l treaty is closed between sovereign democratic nations, anything infringing individual rights is supposed to be solved domestically. High contracting parties are obliged to make such legal environments domestically before/after the treaty.

Jan. 12
07:06 pm JST

So, Japanese victims of Atomic Bombs, or Tokyo air raid, can claim compensation to US? Now?

I think the answer is yes, but only if US domestic law allows it (I'm pretty sure it doesn't.) Similarly, the victims could claim compensation against the Japanese government, but again, only if Japanese domestic law allows it.

Jan. 12
07:31 pm JST

First off you haven't answered my question.

How does the case have to do anything with international treaties?

The court only ruled on domestic law not having to do with any international treaties.

In Japanese courts, it was judged as legal, but in Korean courts, it was judged as illegal. If you live, work and earn money in S. Korea, you should abide by the Korean domestic law and accept any verdict of the Korean Supreme court. If you can not, just leave

Jan. 12
08:20 pm JST

I think the answer is yes, but only if US domestic law allows it (I'm pretty sure it doesn't.) Similarly, the victims could claim compensation against the Japanese government, but again, only if Japanese domestic law allows it.

Thanks albaleo for reinforcing my post

What I think Triring is trying to explain, in short, is that once Int’l treaty is closed between sovereigndemocratic nations, anything infringing individual rights is supposed to be solved domestically.High contracting parties are obliged to make such legal environments domestically before/after the treaty.

Jan. 12
09:47 pm JST

Jan. 12
09:52 pm JST

When the Hiroshima High Court rejected the claim damage by the wartime drafted Korean workers, S. Korean government did not comment anything on this legal matter, because any country should respect the sovereignty of other country, especially on the judiciary. Even the government of a country can not meddle in its own judiciary, not to mention a foreign country.

Now the Abe administration insists that S. Korean government should meddle in a legal verdict and the judiciary of S. Korea. In any democratic country, this request is plainly absurd and rude. If the Abe administration did it intentionally, then its purpose is just to instigate anti-Korean movement for their domestic political interest.

Jan. 12
10:38 pm JST

Umm, you can't put the two equally, SJ. One reading is consistent with a fair plain reading of the treaty text, and the other isn't. I've seen people try and defend the Korean SC's sophistry, but once you allow that horsecrap, what you are really saying is that DESPITE signing a treaty, you can continue to take and take as long as your courts are shameless enough.

A nation cannot use the intricacies of its domestic legal system to avoid compliance with treaties. International law applies regardless of whether you have separation of powers in your own domestic legal system. And if your judiciary makes an illegal judicial act, it is still illegal.

Of course, most countries at least want to make a show of judicial independence, and this dilemma is usually solved by the judiciary carefully sidestepping around making any decision that would go against treaty text. They can rule against the plaintiffs, infinitely delay processing it, agree there is a problem but deny processing on a technicality like statue of limitations, or agree there is an illegality but that costs should be paid by the government because they have no right to interfere. There are many constructions here, but you respect the treaty text and that's not what the South Korean judiciary is doing.

Jan. 12
11:38 pm JST

You have serious problems in basic communications in written English. What was your question?

Anyway, I try to explain in plain and easy English.

If the the second sentence above was your question, then my answer is simple and clear:

The Abe ministration insists that the case does have something with international treaties.

I, the supreme court of Korea and S. Korean government essentially say that the case does not have anything with international treaties.

You are the one who has serious problem with basic understanding of how international treaties and it does not have anything to do with Abe or any administration of Japan.

The ROK supreme court clearly overstepped it's authority by interpreting contents of a treaty bound by two nations that has nothing to do with any domestic laws, is that clear?

By doing so it had violated the treaty that had been signed by two nations regardless of the ruling administration of the time. In doing so all as you have quoted all diplomatic protection rights is reinstated and reactivated, meaning the claims that Japan had abandoned is reinstated. Based on those claims property that had been seized as well as compensation that had been paid shall be reimbursed until a new treaty is bound.

Without prompt reimbursement the Japanese government have diplomatic right to seize all Korean assets the presides in Japan including corporate assets that is based in ROK.

Now do you understand the new can of worms ROK supreme court had opened?

Jan. 12
11:39 pm JST

Fascinating, the number of posters expounding on the relationship between domestic and public international law! Would love to know what qualifications (if any) they have to expostulate on such a complex subject?

Jan. 13
12:05 am JST

@englisc aspyrgend

Fascinating, the number of posters expounding on the relationship between domestic and public international law! Would love to know what qualifications (if any) they have to expostulate on such a complex subject?

Yes. I am also curious about it.

@Triring

The ROK supreme court clearly overstepped it's authority by interpreting contents of a treaty bound by two nations that has nothing to do with any domestic laws, is that clear?

I am quite sure you are not qualified to write like that. Please cite any comment from any Japanese legal expert that may support your ambitious claim above.

Jan. 13
12:53 am JST

You are the one who has serious problem with basic understanding of how international treaties and it does not have anything to do with Abe or any administration of Japan.

If you can read and understand English well, I am sure you should understand the following sentence in bold.

At a session of the House of Councillors’ Budget Committee on August 27, 1991, Director General Yanai Shunji of MOFA’s Treaties Bureau addressed the issue of the abandonment of individual claim rights under the claim settlement agreement, stating, “This is a mutual abandonment of the diplomatic protection rights possessed by Japan and the Republic of Korea as states. So it does not cause the liquidation of the claim rights of individuals with respect to domestic law. It means that the governments of the two countries cannot raise these matters with respect to each other by exercising their diplomatic protection rights.

If you can read and understand "So it does not cause the liquidation of the claim rights of individuals with respect to domestic law", please cite comment or article from Japanese legal expert that indicates any essential difference between this statement made in 1991 and the ruling of the Korean supreme court in 2018. My understanding is that the ruling of the Korean supreme court (A) was just confirming again the statement of the Japanese governmental official in 1991 (B). I am saying A = B.

This is also explained in the following Japanese newspaper. As you seem to have difficulty in reading English, I cite the source in Japanese:

Jan. 13
04:00 am JST

Jan. 13
07:05 am JST

What sort of qualification is necessary to discuss the verdict ? Legal licence?

Even super legal experts at top court, If you break down the verdict, major opinions and minor opinions are confronting each others head-on.

I am of the opinion, as I post somewhere else, the essence of this verdict is that S.K top court arbitrarily defined (with out not only the other party's but also International consensus) 1910 Annexation was illegal and interpreted the treaty as any claims directly caused by this illegal occupation are not covered by 1965 treaty, which is reckless abuse of judicial power of a high contracting party.

I am also of the opinion, Japan as the other high contracting party is of the opinion that 1965 Treaty finally and completely settled all the issues under so called lump sum agreement.

Jan. 13
07:13 am JST

I forgot to add... whether Individual claim rights lapsed or not is actually secondary issue. For S.K judges, it was just lucky that they had Japan's court ruling as precedents to reinstate it's position without headache. If it is not lapsed, S.K government is the one the victims go and claim and they actually started doing so, aren't they?

Is S.K top court allowing the victims claiming against both SK Government and Japanese companies?

Jan. 13
09:30 am JST

@showchinmono

What sort of qualification is necessary to discuss the verdict ? Legal licence?

Good question. Neither I nor most of people here are legal expert. Any interpretation of the law requires tremendous knowledge, training and experience in the judiciary. We call those legal experts lawyers. Among them, selected elites become judges. And among those judges, the selected top judges are appointed as the justices of the supreme court. Neither novices nor most judges or lawyers have more knowledge than those in the supreme court. Of course, anybody can post his/her opinion regarding any verdict and interpretation of the supreme court, at least in S. Korea. There have been fierce debates even among the top judges in the supreme court. A judge in the supreme court corresponds to a ministry in the S. Korean administration, and the top justice to the president (or prime minister) in the administration.

For those common citizens like me and others here, first respect any verdict of the court, regardless of its nationality. How dare some guys here so easily evaluate and condemn any verdict of S. Korean Supreme court? Braveness means ignorance? Even Japanese top legal experts do not it. I also never condemn any verdict of Japanese courts. I respect their decision and interpretation of the law.

What I can do is just citing articles and other sources from legal experts, mostly from Japan, not from S. Korea. I have never expressed my opinion without citation of legal expert's opinion or published newspaper.

You can say whatever you want here, but cite the sources that can support your claims.

Jan. 13
11:56 am JST

“This is a mutual abandonment of the diplomatic protection rights possessed by Japan and the Republic of Korea as states. So it does not cause the liquidation of the claim rights of individuals with respect to domestic law. It means that the governments of the two countries cannot raise these matters with respect to each other by exercising their diplomatic protection rights.

Oh boy not even able to comprehend what is written and not written.

The portion you posted concerns what protects when both sides abide the treaty it does not say anything about what happens when either party unilaterally violates the treaty. When it is violated then both sides are required to discuss how things should be remedied and if negotiation does not come to a consensus then a third nation mediator is requested to step in in which if either party refuses intervention then the other party's claims are reinstated as assurance that the other side will sit to the table with a third nation mediator presence.

In other words when a contract is broken the other side is allowed to collect collateral, how hard is that to understand?

As for qualification necessary to discuss the verdict, again you are so ignorant.

You need to pass a bar exam of a nation to Practice law in that country but to discuss it, zero requirements necessary.

I am not practicing law here I am only stating my opinion with some knowledge and background.

Jan. 14
10:30 am JST

Jan. 14
11:42 am JST

Just like you can have your own opinion and post here, you can denounce any verdict of any country as you like. You should be able to and that does not need any qualification at all. If you are a defendant and want to officially exercise your basic right not to respect the court verdict, you have appeal system and ICJ .

I hate these Japanese and Korean lawyers who like to issue political statements. By your standard, are they respecting the verdict made by Japan top court?

Jan. 14
12:15 pm JST

@SJ Today 04:22 am JST

Since I am working, instead of a full critique of your links, perhaps I can get away with just pointing out that ultimately, Italy lost Civitella in 2012 in the ICJ. It would have been nice if those lawyers had the integrity to acknowledge that.

Jan. 14
01:13 pm JST

I hate these Japanese and Korean lawyers who like to issue political statements.

I am skeptical if all those lawers had actually given permission to use their names at that site.

Lawyers usual don't give permission unless they are given space to explain their explicit position in endorsing anything since with just a name it looks as if they are endorsing it 100% with no comments towards the subject.

Jan. 14
01:35 pm JST

If I add minor points to denounce SK top court's verdict on this issue, though it clarified a few reasoning to waive the expiry of statute of limitation, it was not clear at all if it meant extinctive prescription(消滅時効）or period of excluson(除斥期間) or both. Those two have different legal concept. Period of exclusion does not need invocation of prescription, does not allow interruption.

Additionally, though I know S.K seems to have waived it to issue several anti-Japan laws, the verdict itself and exercise of the verdict possibly violate the principle of non-retroactivity (Ex post fact law) .

Jan. 14
01:44 pm JST

I am skeptical if all those lawers had actually given permission to use their names at that site.

Lawyers usual don't give permission unless they are given space to explain their explicit position in endorsing anything since with just a name it looks as if they are endorsing it 100% with no comments towards the subject.

Well I am not sure either. They could have been just asked and gave their signature without knowing their names disclosed in public.

Jan. 14
06:24 pm JST

@showchinmono @Kazuaki Shimazaki

Whether you are legal experts or not, I no longer respond to your groundless arguments without any citation of external sources. Please cite other sources supporting your claim, so that everyone can evaluate its validity. Of course, I acknowledge your rights to write anything you want to write without any citation.

Jan. 14
07:41 pm JST

Another reason of my request of citing external sources is that it is difficult to understand some written English here, especially on legal expertise. Citation of external sources will help anyone understand its context, as most people here are laymen in legal issues, if the discussion continues here or in other threads.

Jan. 14
08:51 pm JST

Another reason of my request of citing external sources is that it is difficult to understand some written English here, especially on legal expertise. Citation of external sources will help anyone understand its context, as most people here are laymen in legal issues, if the discussion continues here or in other threads.

@SJ

Well, I am not sure how you define laymen in legal issues in public forum. At the end of the day, in particular about constitution, I don't think you need legal license or such training, professional experience to discuss or have your own opinion. It's neither that you can not or should not discuss without citation, nor that you need to have license to make opinion but rather that the Constitution/Laws need to be rewritten easy enough for ordinary people to understand and discuss without citation or expert's opinions.

I am actually frustrated with the official remarks made by Yanai ( the one you often cited) about the way Japan treated individual claim rights because of the background he had to reply that way. (hope you know what I'm talking about) .

3
(
+3
/
-0
)

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.